I suspect that the use of the filibuster would decline somewhat if Senate leaders would actually force Republicans to filibuster. As in, don't just move on to the next item on the agenda when Republicans threaten the filibuster. Go into round-the-clock session for as long as possible to force Republicans to engage in the public spectacle of reading the phone book or whatever in order to hold up the people's business.

Aside from the negative publicity for the filibusterers such a circus would create, I just don't think very many U.S. senators are physically up to the challenge of filibustering all the time. I mean, they've threatened an average of three filibusters a week. More if you count only time the Senate was in session. If the Democratic leadership schedules its votes right -- follow every item Republicans might filibuster with an item of crucial national importance -- then actually holding filibusters would drive home the message of Republican intransigence much more effectively than is happening today. "Gee, we'd like to vote on this and move on to funding our soldiers in Iraq, but the Republicans won't let us do the people's business" would be a more effective argument if Republicans actually were forced to spend three days nonstop filibustering the item on the agenda immediately before the war funds vote.

And for the record, I believed this when Democrats were the filibustering minority, too.

Josh,

It is probably time to admit that the Republicans are going to abuse the filibuster while they can, and that they will trot out the nuclear option when the tables are turned at some date in the future.

Let's invoke that option ourselves and put an end to filibusters forever.

Can anyone enlighten me as to why Senate Dems have _not_ forced the Repubs to carry out their filibusters in the old-fashioned way that Rhubarbs describes?  Is there something in current Senate rules that makes this difficult or impossible?

The filibuster is a valuable legislative tool and George Will is right to support it PROVIDED it is practiced as Will describes it and as it was intended.  The filibuster is the last resort means by which an overwhelmed but committed and passionate minority forces its position to the fore.  The whole point is if a group of senators (or even just one) is so enervated by their beliefs that it empowers them with the stamina and wherewithal to hold the floor for hours or days then they should be heard and allowed to challenge the majority's position to match the resilience of their own.  The "theatre" of the filibuster is its very essence.  Unless it is played out properly, unless the minority is compelled to EARN the filibuster's power, then it's just another candyass senatorial procedure rule that the GOP will use to mop the floor with our current crop of spineless, effete Democrats.

I dunno.  The Democrats seem pretty enervated to me.

Rhu-

I 100% agree and think this is a key issue.  The filibuster is indeed a valuable tool for minority parties... but for the love of god, MAKE THEM USE IT.  If you believe in something strongly enough to filibuster then you should welcome the chance to be on CNN for 24 hrs talking about it.

I also agree with your "physically up to the challenge" comment... if you are not, you don't get to play that card.  If that cuts into the number of barely-conscious senators, so be it.

But since BOTH parties have a vested interest in making their own life easier, it will take some real subversion to change that rule.

Yes, anyone who wants to threaten a filibuster should be forced to back up their threats and take whatever consequences come.  

As far as expecting Senators to use the filibuster responsibly, I don't think discipline and responsibleness are very prized by some politicians -- just as some sectors in our society seem averse to that as well.

I agree with others here - the Dems need to make the Republicans carry out their threats and bring attention to the issue.  As it is, most Americans are absolutely unaware of this problem.  The Dems need to make a big stink about this and not just roll over for McConnell the way they do for Bush.

End the filibuster:  Put a time limit on debate.  You shouldn't need 60 votes to pass everything in the Senate.  I don't know what the practical reasons are for not insisting on floor speeches, but I don't understand why policy should turn on whether an old man has to go to the bathroom anyway.  As for the intensity of minorities, it's important to remember that we're talking about a minority in the Senate, which has wildly disproportionate representation.  That minority, therefore, doesn't necessarily correspond to any significant minority in the country.  It depends on whose ox is getting gored.  If the losers in Senate representation are more in favor of cloture, as they tend to be now, then they get doubly screwed.  We have the House and a presidential veto and a Supreme Court that checks for violations of individual rights.  That's more than enough safeguard against actually accomplishing anything.  Stop minority rule!

p.s.  I think would amend the Constitution to require 2/3ds Senate approval for federal appellate court and Supreme Court appointments.

Mitch McConnell and company managed to torpedo a bill that would have undone the Supreme Court's

Call me crazy, but I don't think this is going to work: Politico reports that Republicans on Capitol